Readers' comments

Yeah and what a great warm welcome she was given by her fellows Czechs while signing the book in one of the Prague's book shops . Booed and shouted out for her war crimes she's steeped in up to her neck . The butcher of the Balkans ,that's her real name and everybody in Czech Republic knows it . Vaclav Dvorak the director of the document called "Stolen Kosovo" tried to hand her over the DVD with English subs but she jumped back with repulsion clearly visible on her wee face like if it was a cup with holy water. Hidden behind a bunch of her henchmen {security) she kept mumbling something about treason so frightened so weak . She knows that her time is coming , aye she knows. I was there by the way and it was fun to see the witch being scared by a bunch of cheeky Slavs . It shows ye that not all Czechs are misled greedy fascist like us in the west but there is still a healthy core which can make some good example......Youtube ---Stolen Kosovo----English subtitles -----check it out ----

Yeah and what a great warm welcome she was given by her fellows Czechs while signing the book in one of the Prague's book shops . Booed and shouted out for her war crimes she's steeped in up to her neck . The butcher of the Balkans ,that's her real name and everybody in Czech Republic knows it . Vaclav Dvorak the director of the document called "Stolen Kosovo" tried to hand her over the DVD with English subs but she jumped back with repulsion clearly visible on her wee face like if it was a cup with holy water. Hidden behind a bunch of her henchmen {security) she kept mumbling something about treason so frightened so weak . She knows that her time is coming , aye she knows. I was there by the way and it was fun to see the which being scared by a bunch of cheeky slavs . It shows ye that not all Czechs are misled greedy fascist like us in the west but there is still a healthy core which can make some good example......Youtube ---Stolen Kosovo----English subtitles -----check it out ----

“It is the “sun state” of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Edvard Beneš, the Czechs, rather than Milan Rastislav Štefánik or Milan Hodža, the Slovaks.”

This sentiment or mild slander by K.M. whoever he/she is quite interesting and needs some clarification. Masaryk’s father was Slovak while mother was from across the border from Moravia so he was Czech like Stalin was Russian.

Stefanik’s participation in the new “sun state” was curtailed in 1919 when he was flying from Italy to Bratislava to discuss the position of Slovakia within Czechoslovakia especially after disagreement with Benes (furious anti-Slovak) and also Masaryk. A secret document from Benes was later found: "I had a conflict with Štefánik. . . Everything is over between us. I mean absolutely.” The plane was shot down before landing by the Czech military. So the “sun state” marriage started with a deceit.

Stefanik as a French General was instrumental in introducing Masaryk to the European political cream. His contribution of giving birth to a new free Czechoslovakia is always downplayed. A tragic figure in that that he was made persona non grata in prewar Czechoslovakia by Benes and persona non grata in post war by the communists, for fighting Bolsheviks in Siberia.

The hypothesis that general Štefánik was shot down by Czechs belongs to the same rank of conspiracy theories as that T.G.Masaryk was an illegitimate son of emperor Franz Josef I. but had to be disguised as the son of the Slovak coachman. It's only disseminated by Slovak nationalists in order to spread hatred against Czechs among Slovaks.

I guess that even Poles (except jubus and malopolanin, of course ;-) don't blame Czechs for the death of general Sikorski even though the airplane was piloted by a pilot of Czech nationality.

It is harder to prove that something didn't happen than that something happened - that's why there are the basic judicial principle "innocent until proven guilty" and "in dubio pro rheo" that you obviously don't stick to.

But anyway, I guess that Slovak nationalists have come with such a conspiratorial hypothesis for two reasons: they were disappointed that Czechoslovakia didn't become federation from the start with large Slovak autonomy which is what especially Slovak emigrants in the US had envisioned. The second reason was that Czechs heavily invested into Slovakia (including bringing intelligentsia like teachers, engineers, etc. there) and thus had greatly contributed to the Slovak upturn. Therefore the nationalists unhappy with Czechoslovakia needed something tangible that would despite this make Slovaks hate Czechs and thus win their support for independent Slovak state, and what is better for this purpose than claiming "They killed our hero, bastards!"

I think Benes was too much of a wimp to be able to come up with such a plot.
That saying I don't think anyone in the Czech Rep. downplays his huge contribution to the establishment of Czechoslovakia. Ask yourself why Slovaks choose to glorify and build their modern, independent identity around disgusting individuals like Tiso or Hlinka, rather than Stefanik, Gabcik or Smik.

Perhaps things would be completely different in critical days of September 1938 had the sucessor of Masaryk been a soldier like Stafanik and not cowardly bureaucrat Benes.

Tomas, let me analyse what you said about Slovak nationalism, by the way you cannot forbid the feelings of nationalism. You said about Slovak life “upturn” in this new country and then without qualifying you said...”Therefore the nationalists unhappy with Czechoslovakia”.

No, nothing you said would alibi the Czech from eliminating Stefanik. Masaryk became president although quite senile by that time, Benes became free hand PM and they gave Stefanik an insult a ceremonial position of minister of war, but there was also Czech minister of defence.

Stefanik was coming back to his beloved nation to undo the wrong and make Slovakia as promised an equal partner in the federation like Vermont is equal to California in senate. His arrival and the time was known and his plane could not be mistaken.

There is nothing derogatory about Hlinkas life and activities – he died in 1938. Of course Czechs did not like him for the following. Hlinka's Slovak People's Party aimed at autonomy of Slovakia within Czechoslovakia on the basis of the Pittsburgh Agreement (1918) between American Czechs and Slovaks and Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. Masaryk, Czechoslovakia's first President, and his successor Edvard Beneš claimed that the treaty was a fabrication and resisted Hlinka's demands. The party was defamed after his death.

Tiso was in wrong place at the wrong time of becoming a Hitler’s puppet. What happened to him is no different from the other war losers except perhaps Hungarian Horthy who is openly jubilated – Hitler’s hand kisser.

"Perhaps things would be completely different in critical days of September 1938 had the sucessor of Masaryk been a soldier like Stafanik and not cowardly bureaucrat Benes."

Indeed, if it had happened, we wouldn't have been here now because our ancestors would have been killed in the war. Beneš was naive in relying on alliance with perfidious France. Štefanik would have done the same due to his connection to France. But after the Munich Agreement, he would have decided for fight, because he is a soldier, not a diplomat, and, most of all, because it is Bohemia and Moravia that would have become the battleground, not Slovakia. And it is always easier to sacrifice somebody else. So God bless that the event took turn as they did, because, regardless what one might think about Beneš, he did what was best to safe his nation because territorial losses or occupation by foreigners can always be amended in the future, but destruction and heavy war casualties are irreversible.

"You said about Slovak life “upturn” in this new country and then without qualifying you said...”Therefore the nationalists unhappy with Czechoslovakia”."
What's wrong with that statement? It pretty makes sense: Common people were happy with increased living standard but the group of nationalist politicians were unhappy that they didn't have power. And if people are economically happy, it's difficult to make them keen on creating independent state if it also means cutting the funds and stalling the development, especially if common people know that it is the power-hungry politicians, who will have to power. So using "heavy calibre" like blaming "the Czechs" for killing a major national hero, is the only way to do it... The same scenario was repeated after the Velvet revolution, but now it was Alexander Dubček who was supposedly killed by Czechs in car accident as he was competitor for presidential position against Václav Havel. BTW, do you believe in this conspiracy theory too?
Also note that, at the time of creation of Czechoslovakia, Slovakia even didn't have Slovak-educated intelligentsia because Hungarians didn't allow to create Slovak schools. So don't take events from today's perspective - at the time of creation of Czechoslovakia, Slovaks were not an equal partner. Sorry. Now they are, so be happy for that - but don't forget that it's the existence of Czechoslovakia that deserves the credit for that!
As for the Štefánik's plane accident, you believe to the stories presented by Mr. Kautský and published by Slovak centre of nationalists - Matica Slovenská, don't you? The official result is that the accident happened due to landing in muddy terrain. Considering what an archaic airplane it was, one cannot be surprised... But of course, you have right to believe in conspiracies.

And one more thing: The fact that Masaryk and Beneš promoted the idea of Czechoslovakism and not a federation was not about disrespect to Slovaks but because the country was multinational (Czechs, Moravians, Silesians, Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians, Ruthenians, etc.) and to prevent fragmentation of the already relatively small country to dozens of tiny autonomies, the politicians tried to encourage the love of people to the country regardless of their native language and could not have preferred some nations over the others.
Remember that it was age of national states that were mutually unfriendly and had to show some unity not to be an easy morsel for the others. It cannot be compared to today, when we live in the age of friendly European regions united in EU.

“The official result is that the accident happened due to landing in muddy terrain. Considering what an archaic airplane it was, one cannot be surprised... But of course, you have right to believe in conspiracies.”

………………..
“The official” you mean the Czech version, of course you have right to believe in hallucinations “muddy terrain” is normally left for plane landing (it was military plane Caproni 450)...there were powerless witnesses that sow what happened and they sow Czech’s anti-aircraft battery that disappear after the incident.

I have concluded that you are indoctrinated too much by the one-sided (Czech) stories and believe me the legacy of Benes and Ms. Albright for that matter is not worth defending. Equally, defending the asymmetric Czechs and Slovaks cohabitation as unnecessary has eventually backfired.

This is Czech speculative version: that it could be also a suicide because he insisted on piloting above Bratislava during the landing and when he found that he killed several Italians because of stubbornness, he committed suicide out of shame.

Anyway, I don't have extra illusions neither about Štefánik nor about Beneš at that time. They were ambitious, swollen-headed and hot-tempered young men and so I'm not surprised that building a state together was not an easy idyll. Yet, I don't believe that they would plot assassination of the opponent because of that.

Tomas, I respect your viewpoint and our exchanges of opinion on a matter that belongs to history. Remember that I do not feel animosity towards your opinions; everybody is entitled to an opinion.

Few months back I posted something on EU and I used examples of dissolution of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and even Yugoslavia as an example of how precarious the EU situation is. Those unions and countries were kept together by the despotic communist regimes...ironically what the future of the EU is without this necessary ingredient?

Czechoslovakia is not a communist project. Similar to the State of Slavs, Croats and Serbs, it was project that was necessary so that smaller nations of former Habsburg monarchy could form independent but viable and strong enough states in Europe of warring national states.

But unlike Yugoslavia or USSR, breakup of Czechoslovakia after fall of communism had no real reason but was only a initiated to satisfy ambitions of a small group of local power hungry politicians in Slovakia. If there had been a people's referendum, it's result would be against breakup of Czechoslovakia in both members of the federation.

While Slovenes and Croats are Catholics with historical ties to the CE cultural sphere, Serbs are Orthodox, Cyrillic-alphabet culture with strong ties to Russia. So it makes sense that not being pressed by the bipolar world, their paths will part. On the other hand, Czechs and Slovaks share the culture and their post-1989 political paths were the same (integration with EU and NATO). Slovaks managed to win the federation in 1968 (it was pretty annoying, BTW, that when Czechs under the leadership of Slovak communist leader fought for democratization, local politicians in Slovakia only cared to strengthen their local power), in which Slovaks despite being half the size of Czech countries gained parity - but it's OK because a kind of generosity towards junior partner is desirable and is applied even in EU - e.g. every member has a commissioner regardless of size. So Slovaks had they own parliament (Slovak National Council), government and parity in federal institutions (rember that there was nothing like Czech National Council originally and the Czech situation reminded that of England in UK today and Slovak that of Scottish except that Scots have oil and don't want to share profits while Slovaks had ... mountains only ;-). Also there was strong redistribution of money from federal budget to Slovakia and, unlike Flemish and Valons in Belgium, there were not even language issues.

That's why the Slovak ambitious politicians came with very bizarre requirements like hyphen in the name of the country, separate seat in the UN, etc. So it was clear that they will do anything to seize full power over Slovakia and the majority of Slovak population was quite (didn't have power to say no, but also didn't say yes)....

If you ask me whether there is a way to prevent people and countries being hostages of over-ambitious regional politicians: I think so. It is necessary to prevent moral hazard. Basically everybody has right to become independent and but the mother country (partner country) has right to cease any contacts with the former partner and starve them out like East Germans did with West Berlin once (without the airline supplies they would die of hunger). Czechs were stupid that they preserved most of the advantages of federation to Slovak in the form of "exceptional relationships" - then it's of course easy to proclaim independence.

But it applies generally: if Putin or Milosevic instead of harassing with weapons simply said to Chechnya or Kosovo simply OK, be independent but we're closing borders (because it's our right too that cannot be denied), then these regions would think twice about independence.

As for EU - in this case the mutual cooperation is coordinated on the EU platform that's why regionalization makes sense. But again, if regional politicians manage their country wrong, they should ask either EU or impose the remedial measures on their own regional people again, not ask the mother country for bailout (like e.g. Spanish autonomous provinces have recently done).

The rule should be simple: rights must by accompanied by responsibilities. If you fail to govern your region due to your own mismanagement, it's you and your region who should bear the consequences and suffer. Otherwise it's moral hazard.

You talk a lot about the break up. “Czechs were stupid that they preserved most of the advantages of federation to Slovak in the form of "exceptional relationships" - then it's of course easy to proclaim independence.”

No, the slogan was “let’s get rid of that Slovak burden”, then PM Klaus was advocating although without mandate. The present economic achievements perfectly indicate who was exploited within the federation. Free Slovakia GDP growth 3.0% (1Q), Czech “kingdom” -0.7%; free Slovakia GDP per person employed $31995 (PPP) Czech $25059.

This might be caused by the old Czech motto: “Nedelat a vydelat!”, just kidding.

You somehow forget that Slovaks have just pompously celebrated 20th anniversary of Slovak Declaration of Independence that was unilaterally adopted by Slovak National Council on July 17th, 1992... Considering comment by jubus below blaming unilateral actions of Slovenes and Croats, Slovaks were not different. What was different was reaction of federal president Havel who consequently resigned and thus allowed national delegations to peacefully negotiate terms and conditions - which resulted in fully managed breakup half a year later dated to January 1st, 1993. If Milosevic had reacted this way too, Yugoslavia could have been spared of decade of bloodshed, spoiled relationships and economic decline.
You're however right that the differences between path of Czech and Slovak republics emerged after entering EU where Slovaks are more integrationalist and if the common state had existed, there would have been a lot of quarreling for sure and who knows whether Czechoslovakia would have been now EZ member or not.
In general, I also think Slovakia is doing well considering that 10% of population is amortized (Roma) not contributing to GDP and that the landscape is mainly mountains which is not efficient for economic activities (and expensive for infrastructure). But when you assail Czech results, you should understand that many functions in Czech administration and business are run and done by Slovaks, so if you're also critical to their work ;-)...
Also talking about present, I'm quite surprised that Moravia and Czech Silesia are not active in taking advantage of regionalization of EU and do not show will to become separate members of EU. They were historical lands (although always associated with Bohemia as "Lands of Czech Crown") and current administrative division even does not respect historical borders. The local nationalist were active in early 1990th inspired by Slovak nationalism, but this declined and even their latest political incarnation (party Moravané) has gained only 0.22% of votes in last elections. What could be the reason?
And, BTW, I liked your term "Free Slovakia". Do Irishmen have such a great influence on Slovaks in the US? ;-)

Tomas, though I understand your argument about right to starve Slovakia/Slovenes/Croats out after breakup, I have objections.
First, it would not work. The decision made by Slovak politicians was not presented to voters as rational economical one, but rather sentimental national one. You have to admit that there's nothing wrong with it. The clever solution is to avoid being hysterical, calm emotions down, talk a lot and seek solutions. Like when your emotional wife is threatening with a divorce:-) But that was always the price of managing a Federation. Klaus certainly was not mature enough for such task and Meciar even worse. Not even talking about that idiot Milosevic.
Second, your strategy would be damaging in context of CEE drive to join EU and NATO. The well managed breakup and good regional relations (Visegrad Group, CEFTA and such, despite Slovak-Hungarian love affair) were good sign that those countries were politically stable enough for accession. And once in EU, with open borders and labour market, it is very much like in a federation, so any pressure would have had only temporal character - I'd say your strategy would be quite unimpressive.
Regards, VS

The starvation remark was about regions that are too small or too isolated to be able to work efficiently independently.

My point, however, was more general. The reason why EU countries are in troubles is moral hazard. Regions want to be independent but at the same time rely on advantages of mother countries. Countries want to take advantages of EU but without being part of EU and sacrificing something (Switzerland, Norway, etc.). Bankers want to privatize profit but nationalize losses. Companies want to sell their products in EU but at the same time want to be domiciled in tax paradises and outsource production into Asia, etc. Thus, the current crisis will not be solved until all these imbalances and inconsistencies are fixed. THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION! Decision makers must be aware that everything comes at a price and must intrinsically incorporate considering disadvantages and penalties into their reasoning. Nobody wants to "starve" anybody, but it should be a prevention: it's like the criminal code - nobody wants to have prisoners (if only because it costs tax payers money) but the risk of prison prevents undesired behaviour.

Reputation of the region is important but unfortunately, it does not apply for the reason mentioned above (world is used to inconsistencies). Thus the excuse seems to be used only by Czech politicians when they look for excuse why they don't act with the care of frugal manager (e.g. nullifying the issue of 24 billion Kčs of Slovak national bank debt). The point is that Slovenia (that started the independence war and still has territorial issues with Croatia) was admitted into EU at the very same time as Czech R. and Slovakia and was admitted into NATO at the same time as Slovakia. Also note that Greece and Turkey (both NATO members) are at chronic war. Greek Cyprus has even become EU member despite division of the island and chronic disputes between both parts... Thus, yes, EU and NATO have some rules that countries must have peaceful and cooperating relationships with neigbours - but the problem is that in practice it is not demanded and the countries can behave pathologically without any fear of penalty.

"With all external similarity of situation we are fundamentally different. Our national and migration problems are directly linked to the collapse of the USSR, and in fact, historically – great Russia, established in its basis in the eighteenth century. With the inevitable ensuing degradation of public, social and economic institutions. With a huge gap in the development of the post-Soviet space.
"Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then Deputies of the RUSSIAN SSR in the excitement of a fight against the Centre launched the process of construction of "national States" even within the Russian Federation. "Federal Centre", in turn, trying to pressure opponents began to behind-the-scenes game with Russian entities, promising them improved "national status". Now the participants of these processes, blame each other. But one thing is certain – their behaviour equally and inevitably lead to the collapse and separatism. And they did not have any courage, nor responsibility, nor the political will is to consistently and vigorously defend the territorial integrity of the Motherland.
What the initiators of the "sovereignty transfer” undertakings may not have understood, all the rest, including those beyond the borders of our State – have understood very clearly and quickly. And the impact was immediate.

"With the disintegration of the country, we were on the brink, and in some well-known regions – even beyond the brink of civil war and ethnic violence on ethnic ground . With superior efforts, with great victims , we succeeded in quelling the unrests . But of course, this does not mean that the problem has been removed."

Euro-skepticism of mainstream Czech politicians is not caused by the “Munich trauma” (well, except some increased sensitivity, e.g. when future EZ members were restrained from access to summits shaping future EZ).

To understand the causes and implications of Czech "small mindedness, corruption and isolationism, be it from the EU or globalisation", one must realize how the concept of nation is understood in the region - the differences are then clear (please, note that I’m a little bit exaggerating to emphasize the differences):

Germans traditionally stick to the “Blut und Boden” concept: Wherever there is German “blood”, there must also be German “land”. That’s why coexistence with German-speaking minorities in other CE countries was not viable and these two proprieties had to be put into correspondence after WW2. The consequence is that Germans will support EU as long as it will adopt German models.

Poles traditionally stick to the “blood” concept of nation: Priority is the people and their interests – simply Poland is wherever Poles are, the land is not important. That’s why they are happy to create diasporas (virtual Polands) anywhere in the world and even don’t mind if their core land is moved 200km westward as long as it is better, bigger (,faster, more ;-). The consequence is that Poles will support any model of EU as long as it brings tangible benefits to the people (i.e. Poles).

Czechs traditionally stick to the “land” concept of the nation: They are still magically captured by the poem Land Talks that ends by exclamation: “If you leave me, I will not perish, if you leave me, you will perish!” They simply have their own core territory that makes the scope of their microcosm and everything beyond that is expendable. When Czechs leave their country, they either soon become homesick and return or stay there giving up their original identity and fully assimilating with the new environment. These principles can help understand why Czechs didn’t have any sentiments when they lost non-core territories (Carpathian Ukraine and later Slovakia) or that the lack of the “blood” patriotism makes their land very permissible for foreigners as long as they don’t directly dispute the land. Politicians don’t hesitate to make decisions that are economically unsound – e.g. accepting unproductive Romani inhabitants from other CEE countries en mass after WW2 or accepting ambitious foreigners who are very motivated and keen on taking lead in the country (e.g. Slovaks, Russians, Ukrainians or second generation of Vietnamese who are especially eager for success and putting lazy and/or comfortable locals aside) or any kind of corruption that brings them personal benefits because they don't feel responsible for any blood-determined nation. That somehow reminds of the situation of the “little Englanders” except that the Czech land is not an island to provide the splendid isolation illusion… Therefore the consequence is that Czech politicians will not voluntarily accept any outside interference that could be interpreted as a loss of the full control over their core territory, regardless whether it economically or politically harms the Czech people. They also won’t come with any proposals that go beyond their core territory because it’s outside their scope. Thus, the only way to break this attitude is to take advantage of the permissiveness of the country for foreigners, become Czech politicians and voters and change it from within. Yet, the political parties eagerly guard their dominance, so the only solution is the presidential position that is now decided by people in the direct elections – and there are indeed several candidates coming from abroad that could have larger territorial scope than locals…

You wrote: "..second generation of Vietnamese who are especially eager for success and putting lazy and/or comfortable locals aside.."
I have learned something very important: Prague will no longer be known as Prague but as Ho-Chi-Ming City West !!! :)

"Prague will no longer be known as Prague but as Ho-Chi-Ming City West !!! :)"

It would not be the correct image. It may apply for the Libuš neighbourhood (with the huge Sapa market) but members of Vietnamese minority differ from other foreigners substantially: they are not concentrated in the capital but rather scattered all over the country, including small towns and villages. They also prefer not depend on state or employers but operate as independent traders - and in addition to textile shops, they run groceries, green-groceries, "Chinese" restaurants, but also gambling sites or drug planting / dealing....

The old truth is that if you want to claim to have conquered a country, you have to manage to "hijack" her rural areas - because they are the most conservative bearers of old traditions resistant to changes. In this context, when in every other small Czech town 12 out of 20 shops in the townsquare are currently run by Vietnamese, we can nothing but congratulate them because they have managed to change the "look-and-feel" of Czech countryside quite substantially...

But my point was about the second generation that is educated locally and I assume that, similarly as immigrants in Western Europe, they will soon become local and/or nation-wide politicians. This will have both positive effect in that the "small-mindedness" will be lost as they will not be affected by the local national historical sentiments, on the other hand, of course, it may be the end of the traditional national politics "as we know it".

In this context, I find amusing how Euro-skeptics put effort against changes imposed by EU but the fact that migration and demographic changes initiated internally by national politicians (i.e. NOT by EU) have been significantly contributing to the end of traditional European national states, is happily ignored...

Yes, of course - by sentiment I meant the period and intensity of coming to terms with the loss imposed by external forces (or even internal in case of Czechoslovak federation breakup in 1993).

Czechs, Moravians and Czech Silesians loved Czechoslovakia in her original form and were keen on developing all her lands but they came to terms with the forced reduction and later breakup of Czechoslovakia more easily than with stripping the core lands (from their viewpoint) of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia by the Munich Agreement - which were the traditional, historical territories that represented the national continuity for them.

Western Europe must slowly bring Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova into the fold.

First, we should unilaterally drop visa restrictions on citizens of these countries, and permit work/ study. A large expat community would transfer business skills, institutional expectations and exert strong political pressure for convergence with Europe.

Second, we should apply consistent diplomatic pressure towards legal, media and political convergence, and integration in the European economic area. Most ordinary people and many politicians want this - the outcome is win-win, except for certain vested interests (principally corrupt officials).

Third, we should increase European investment bank funding for infrastructure projects and integration. Access to finance matters - and is especially useful in helping to lubricate institutional reform.

This isn't just about extending liberty and prosperity to Europe's East - though this obviously matters. Out of pure self interest, Western Europe should pursue the above solely for the resulting improvements in regional interdependence and security.

Your comments, while sensible in principle, include something of a contradiction though...

I mean, one of the ways in which the EU has been "apply[ing] consistent diplomatic pressure towards legal, media and political convergence" has been the imposition of certain restrictions, and the withdrawal of certain investments/funding, whenever the governments of these countries, especially Belarus, moved even further away from the legal, media and political standards of the EU. Increasing funding for things like infrastructural projects in Belarus or Ukraine again will benefit the 'misbehaving' governments of these countries, politically as well as financially, so how can it be squared with the need to apply consistent diplomatic pressure?

Under a regime like Lukashanka's, only regime loyalists will be likely to benefit from opportunities to work, study and trade abroad, since only they have the money and the removal of visa barriers on the part of the EU does not need to mean that the Belarussian government will also give everyone the right to travel and emigrate. So again there is a tension between promoting integration (removing restrictions) and applying pressure on the regime (by imposing restrictions).

I have no easy answer either, of course, because isolating the countries as a whole as part of pressuring their governments carries its own costs, obviously. But there is a real tension between the different recommendations you make.

Agreed in part - especially in the recent actions of EU countries, there is indeed a conflict between border opening & convergence on the one hand, and cleaning up the Belarus government on the other.

There is still potential for progress:
- it is possible to impose sanctions only on particular members of the senior leadership (travel bans only for Lukashenko and similar)

- when West Germany opened to the East, it didn't matter that the East imposed tight emigration controls. As East Germans crossed via Czechoslovakia and Hungary, so Belarusians will cross to Europe via Ukraine, Russia and any weak points on the border.

- the EU could choose to offer guaranteed apprenticeships, language lessons, study scholarships and work appropriate to prior experience for all Belarusians getting into the EU. Belarus is small enough that this would be a negligible cost. But it would sow the seeds of regime change, liberalisation and economic growth in Belarus - and improved European security.

- if people are aware of the possibility of escaping to a better life in the West, they become less fearful and fatalistic about opposing the present regime. The availability of an exit strategy makes popular resistance viable. That, combined with increased direct or friend & family experience of life beyond repression, will motivate inevitable regime change eventually.

- it is possible to narrowly restrict infrastructure spending (e.g. new highways connecting Minsk-Vilnius & Brest-Warsaw, better railway connections to Baltic ports), and make this spending conditional on proportionate (i.e. relatively modest) incremental steps towards political opening (e.g. accepting freer exit and entry of both Europeans and Belarusians at the border, liberalising air traffic, freeing the internet).

I guess my way of resolving the tension is by acknowledging that the EU has almost no direct power to achieve political openness, fair elections or freedom in Belarus. Where we do apply political and diplomatic pressure, the sanctions involved should be narrowly targeted at the regime, and proportionate (publicity alone can achieve plenty). Rather, the Belarusian people have to demand and secure freedom for themselves. Since that is an inevitable consequence of integration and exposure, the EU does have enormous indirect power - it should be as open and welcoming as possible to Belarus citizens.